536 TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION C. 



Sweden. — In Sweden, and, I believe, also in Denmark, the Interglacial hypo- 

 thesis is generally accepted, at least to the extent of one epoch of deglaciation, but 

 is strenuously opposed bj^ Dr. N. 0. Hoist, who states his conviction, based on the 

 result of his observations in Greenland, that the so-called interglacial sands and 

 gravels and the ' upper moraine ' of Sweden represent the residual products of 

 the ice-sheet that laid down the ' lower moraine ' as a ground-moraine. He also 

 embraced the drifts of North Germany in this explanation.' 



Germany. — In Germany, the discussion on the ' Interglacialismus ' is still in 

 active progress. The idea of one interglacial epoch, corresponding to the 

 ' Helvetian ' of Professor J. Geikie's scheme, is widely entertained ; and some 

 geologists, influenced largely by evidence in the Alps, think that au earlier inter- 

 glacial stage( = * Norfolkian '), preceded by a stage of glaciation ( = ' Scanian '), may 

 have to be admitted, though the German evidence is acknowledged to be imperfect. 

 But Professor Geikie's interpretation of the North German drifts, on which he 

 seeks to establish the * Neudeckian Interglacial ' and the ' Meckleuburgian Glacial ' 

 epochs is strongly and authoritatively opposed. In a searching criticism of these 

 views Dr. K. Keilhack, of the Prussian Geological Survey,'^ states that no reason 

 has been found, by himself or his colleagues, for the proposed separation of the 

 upper drifts into these separate epochs ; and he remarks that, on similar grounds, 

 ' the so-called " last glacial epoch " would have to be divided into four if not 

 five epochs, so that even the most fanatical advocate for as many glacial periods 

 as possible would be terrified.' Professor Geikie, ia his reply to this criticism,' 

 brings forward the British evidence to establish the case in Germany. But, as 

 we shall see, this evidence is especially weak, and we in this country had expected 

 that the stronger proof lay in Germany. 



While the supporters of the 'Interglacialismus' are thus uncertain how 

 much of the scheme they will accept, there are other geologists in Germany who 

 repudiate the hypothesis in its entirety, and hold for the ' singleness of the Ice- Age.' 

 Among these I may mention Professor E. Gelnitz,* whose vigorous attack has 

 been supported by Dr. W. Wolff, in a useful summary of the discussion, which 

 contains many references to the literature.^ 



Hussia. — In Russia, again, opinion is divided, and the evidence brought 

 forward in favour of the Interglacial idea has been adversely criticised by 

 Mr. S. Nikitin, of the Russian Geological Survey," who considered that, whatever 

 may have been the conditions farther westward, oscillations of the ice-margin would 

 suffice to explain the facts observed in this outer portion of the glaciated area. 



The Aljjs. ^In the Alps there appears to be definite evidence for several 

 periods of advance of enormous glaciers from the mountain valleys, with intervening 

 periods of great recession, and these are supposed to correspond to glacial and 

 interglacial epochs in Northern Europe ; but there has been much difference of 

 opinion respecting this evidence and its intei-pretation. By Professors A. Penck 

 and E. Briickner, who have systematicallj^ investigated the phenomena, the ice- 

 movements are held to indicate four separate epochs of glaciation, with three, or 



' ' Har det fannits mera an en istid i Sverige.' Sveritjeg Geologislta Undersokning 

 Ser. C, No. 151 (1895) ; and ' On the Relations of the " Writing Chalk" of TuUstorp 

 (Sweden) to the Drift Deposits, with Reference to the Interglacial Question.' Geol. 

 Mag., dec. v., vol. i. (1904), pp. 56-59. 



* ' Professor Geikie's Classification of the North European Glacial Deposits. 

 Journ. Geol., vol. v. (1897), pp. 113-125. See also discussion by H. Munthe, 

 'Studieniiber altere Quartarablagerungen im siidbaltischen Gebiete.' Bull. Geol. 

 Instit. Upsala, vol. iii. No. 5 (1896), pp. 27-114. 



' ' The Last Great Baltic Glacier.' Journ. Geol., vol. v. (1897), pp. 324-339. 



* 'Die Einheitlichkeit der quartaren Eiszeit.' Neues Jahrb. f. Mineralogie, etc., 

 xvi. (1902), pp. 1-98, and other papers. 



* ' Zur Kritik der Interglacial-Hypothese.' Natiirmlss. WocJienaohrift. Neue Folga. 

 Bd. ii. No. 26 (1903), 14 pp. . 



" ' Sur la constitntion des depotis quaternaires en Russie, etc' Jiej?. Congrii 

 J nfernat. d'ArcJi^ologie, Mosoon, lHd2. 



